Comment Of The Week

Reader BC gives some historical perspective to the alimony issue. (“Historical whaaa? I’m a feminist, I know not of such things. Please to dress it up in snark so that I can properly menstruate in the comments section at Jizzebel.”)

In Olde Timey days — like, medieval England, we’re talking about — a husband gained ownership of all his wife’s property (her dowry) when they married, and did not relinquish it when they divorced. Since women didn’t work [ed: in a cubicle] back then, the result was that a divorce would frequently leave the woman totally destitute. Alimony was a way to avoid that: a divorced man kept the dowry, but incurred an obligation to feed, house, clothe, and otherwise support his ex-wife until she remarried or died.

Two things upended the applecart. First, we started dividing marital assets at divorce. That’s a subject about which entire books could be (and have been) written, but the key point is that ex-wives ceased to be penniless; they took (oftentimes substantial) assets with them when they left a marriage. Second, women fully entered the workforce as primary wage-earners in their own right, and there ceased to be any good reason why they couldn’t support themselves.

Together, those two developments have pretty thoroughly undermined the policy rationale for alimony, and in a sane world it would have become a historical footnote occasionally pressed into service to avoid injustice in truly extraordinary cases. Instead, the American family law system in which I toil has been marinating in femcunt ideology since the sixties, and while there are a few scattered efforts at reform, the result is that alimony largely persists — not as necessary spousal support, but to make it more financially convenient for women to abandon the beta providers they swore to love, honor, and obey.

One thing you have to understand about the divorce industrial complex if you want to know how and why things traveled this far down the circles of post-nuptial hell: The spiteful degenerates who advocated for no-fault divorce and punitive alimony and child support, and the blood-sucking parasites who inevitably followed in their wake, never had fairness in mind. What they wanted, ultimately, was the reconstruction of society to extend and enshrine total female freedom of access and removal of accountability in the marital and sexual markets, while restricting and regulating as much as possible male access to the sexual market, particularly beta male access, and placing upon men responsibility for the consequences of both men’s and women’s actions within those markets.

And that is why I declare a guy like this a justifiable American hero who, if the West were ever to regain its sanity, would have a monument erected in his honor. Or at least a Truck Nutz dedicated in his name.

You’re deluding yourself into thinking you’re “more evolved” or “better than this” as a human- you’re also quite the base animal as are they; it takes so damned much energy and intelligence to counter these impulses that most quite simply LIE to themselves about them and claim they’re not doing them. Yourself included.

All I can recall reading was that easy-divorce (so the White-Knights, and Right-Reverends said) would be a boon for Don Juans. How stupid could they get: Don Juan’s don’t marry; they don’t need to. Easy Divorce is merely a boon for hypergamous serial monogamist gold-diggers.

Some caveats.
Remember this is how they dealt with female slaves of their own people.
The word redeem in verse 8 in this context means to sell the slave to someone else maybe even back to her father. Verse 11 is also talking about redemption in the same context but for zero money.

Exodus
chapter 21
(NASB)

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8 If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11 If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.”

Verse 10 was the interesting one to me. If the master takes another slave to his bed but doesn’t sell the first slave, the first slave would legally still have access to her master’s body if she wanted some sex for fun or making a baby as well as being assured of food and clothing.

7) when it says her father sold her, it meant he sold her for marriage, not to become a sex slave. The Bible doesn’t recognize sex slavery. If a man married a woman, she automatically became his property, whether he paid for her or not. That’s why in Biblical times a wife called her husband my master (or lord), and a man called his wife my women. That’s why she wore a wedding the ring and he wore no ring – which signified she belonged to him, and the ring was a symbol of it.

8) Now, if she is displeasing in his eyes, he can’t sell her to a foreign people. So he can’t sell her into slavery. But he can sell her to a new husband/master and get his money back.

9) if he buys her from her father for his son, he must deal with her as his daughter. The Bible considers sleeping with your son’s wife an incestuous relationship.

10) if he marries another women, he must still take care of his first wife (even the wife he bought). The Bible gave men strict rules on what a man owed a woman if he married her. He must clothe her and feed her, and he must continue to have sex with her. He can’t deprive her of sexual pleasure. Those were the obligations of a husband once he married a woman (and she became his property).

11) according to Biblical law, the man gives the divorce because the woman is considered his property. UNLESS, he doesn’t provide her his obligations – food, clothing, conjugal relations. Only under such conditions can she ask for a divorce, and, if he bought her, she can go out without him getting his money back from selling her or returning her to her father.
__________________________________________________________

“Verse 10 was the interesting one to me. If the master takes another slave to his bed but doesn’t sell the first slave, the first slave would legally still have access to her master’s body if she wanted some sex for fun or making a baby as well as being assured of food and clothing.”

Because she isn’t a slave; she is a wife. The Bible never sanctioned sex slavery. She was his wife (even though he paid for her) and as such he had to make sure she had her needs met.

The only type of slavery the Bible sanctioned is Indentured servitude. Once you worked off to pay your debt, you were sent free. And…you can never work off the debt more than 7 years. That’s where we get the secular bankruptcy laws that one can file every 7 years, or your credit file renewing every 7 years, or you need to keep your financial records for 7 years (for the IRS), or the 7-year business cycle, etc, etc….

There is a war on boys in this culture. Anyone who is raising boys needs to be worried. Not only are they feminizing male children, but boys get prescribed all the psychiatric drugs (not girls) just for acting like boys. Hello!!!!! Boys are not like girls, and they shouldn’t be. Boys are more active, extroverted, and boisterous than girls, and yet in public schools every little boy who is a bit overactive, his parents are forced to take him to psychiatrists who drug him out of his mind, which stumps his growth, defects his sperm, and screws with his hormones and he becomes psychotic as he grows into a teenager. Ooooooh, it makes so me mad!

Everyone who has children should consider a quality private school or home schooling.

Then you add to the psychiatric drugs all the bad entertainment coming from Hollywood, like the crap from Tarantino and his buddies, and you can see why so many people get fucked up. It has nothing to do with the “gun culture,” as the liberals like to hurl at us every chance they get. It has to do with the activities and the policies the liberals promote.

Also, when you take out morality from the public schools and the understanding of the difference between right and wrong, this is bound to happen. The line of demarcation between right and wrong has been obliterated.

Look at how many of these horrific shootings we had this year alone. And the liberals, all they do is try to seize it for political gains to curtail the 2nd amademened. They are not interested in the real issues in the culture causing this evil.

Life expectancy was very different in medieval times. And women were generally married very young to a much older man. So, if the Wife of Bath is any indication, she’d be married a couple of times because the old coots would keep kicking the bucket! Men would also experience more “variety” as there was a much higher chance their wives would die during childbirth. The lifetime committment of marriage and any ensuing fallout is simply more dauting now because of our longer lifespans.

They had access to a young virgin bride, and by the time she pumped out a handful of kids and showed wear and tear, she’d ride off into the sunset during childbirth. The husband would then rinse and repeat.

Today, instead of dying off, they just get divorced and take everything. What incentive is there for a modern man to get married?

Kids?
Don’t need marriage to raise kids. See cohabitation.

Love?
See divorce court.

Respectability?
That went out the window when it became ok for women to be non-virgins before marriage.

I may be disagreeing with the published commenter above. I may or may not be right. Here it goes anyway. The No Ma’am blog by Robert Federer stated that American men up until the 1860s(American Civil War) usually got the house and the children unless he was deemed at fault for the divorce or an unfit parent. The wife got told to leave and she seldom if ever had to pay child support. If she was deemed at fault or an unfit parent, I’m sure she got nothing but the door. It was very difficult to prove men were at fault for divorce up until that time. The divorce rate in the USA was 1% and it was usually men who initiated divorce up until that time. Then the laws changed for the woman to get the house and children unless she was deemed an unfit mother or truly at fault. They made it easier to prove the man at fault and that he was an unfit father in the 1860s. The divorce rate shot up to 10% and it was women who were initiating most divorces. Then the no fault divorces came in the 1960s(Vietnam War) and by the 1980s there was a 50% divorce rate. I’ll try to find the link.

It is also interesting to note that up until 1990 that South Korea had a divorce rate of 1% and that from 2000 on it’s divorce rate has been 45%. The family, marriage, child custody and divorce laws changed. Before the husband got the house and and children if he wasn’t deemed unfit and he wanted them while the wife got shown the door but usually did not have to pay child support. It was difficult to prove that the father was at fault and he was an unfit parent in South Korea. Husbands initiated most divorces up until this year. After 1990, the wife got the children and the house and the husband was forced to pay child support. It was difficult to prove the wife and mother was at fault and was an unfit mother after 1990. South Korean wives initiated divorce in about 65% of the cases. I believe that fault divorce is still in effect in South Korea. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny this.

You’re not wrong. Divorce laws weren’t static from Magna Carta through the 1960s; different jurisdictions experimented with different post-marital arrangements to try to make things equitable. But the policy rationale for alimony started crumbling when we began dividing marital assets, and it pretty much collapsed when women started achieving a level of wage-earning self-sufficiency.

No-fault divorce plays into this at the margins, because frequently alimony was allocated (or denied) on the basis of fault: an unfaithful spouse was less likely to be awarded alimony, and more likely to have to pay it.

Actually, I don’t want to bomb the Iranian population. The people there are decent and westernized from the days of the Shah. Most of them are educated. It’s the evil religious autocracy there that’s causing all the troubles. Trust me, if any western government bombs them, it will be just their nuclear facilities; not population centers. There will be minimal collateral damage.

I wouldn’t say the same thing about other Muslim countries, though. In Pakistan, for instance, the population is evil, not just the government.

Anyway, right now the Israelis are targeting their nuclear facilities using remote methods like sending them computer viruses. There was a book that just came out on Mossad technologies. Smart those Jews, as long as they are not infected with liberalism.

What anon said. About 98% of non-Whites HATE HATE HATE White guys (they’re OK if they’re guys with hot White women though). Roosh = hypocrite. He’s perfectly willing to bang a hot White chick. He’s not willing to disapprove of killing a guy who could be her brother. And that’s about 98% again of Non-Whites. If you want the ugly truth of it.

“So my guess is that this movie could see a further escalation of black-on-white violence.”

This movie was made for a reason. First, consider the idea of “Precalibration”

The secret of Las Vegas, a place that was actually built to suck money out of everyone that enters: to “Precalibrate people to lose.”

This sounds ridiculous on the surface – but, you and me and everyone else have bought into this idea. We have all been precalibrated to go to Las Vegas and blow money and have fun, and LOSE – and we don’t care.

Because that is what’s supposed to happen. That’s what we should expect.

There are few things more powerful over other humans than controlling the frame of what they should expect/

Expectations govern behavior.

It was Erving Goffman, in books like “Frame Analysis,” that first pioneered the concepts around “Frames.” Obviously we are familiar with things such as “Frame Control” in Game.

It is extremely powerful to plant a seed of expectation in your victim’s mind (or the person you’re seducing) before it even happens.

You can the precalibrate masses to do many things they would not consider could be permissible in reality – and this has been going on for years.

This white-baiting movie has an agenda: to stoke animosity towards White Gentile Americans. There is no other reason to finance and produce this movie (Harvey Weinstein,).

When you release a movie where one White after another are being murdered for over two hours, — and positioning it as humor — you are planting a seed in the national psyche

No. Exhibit A. Ron Goldman. Quentin Tarantino is the guy behind this movie. He’s Italian. ITALIAN. And uber-nerdy. Tarantino has worshipped Blacks since Pulp Fiction; as bankrupt an enterprise as hating Blacks. He’s also SWPL zeitgeist of fantasy remaking of history. Slaughtering Hitler, imposing SWPL stuff on the pre-Civil War era. Etc.

Blacks HATE HATE HATE Jews more than any other White group, in fact, because Jews made the Civil Rights movement effective when Blacks were failures, and because Jews are on average smart and Blacks dumb. The movie is SWPL central, you’ll notice no White women get the Nicole Brown Simpson treatment.

Some gay-faggot-SWPL I was talking to once was masturbating furiously about how “Inglorious Basterds” was a genius political film with no precursors. “I mean, who ever rendered a person personally killing Hitler?”

I then informed him that both Captain America and Superman had fought Hitler personally back in the day—and Captain America was made famous by a cover of his physically punching Hitler.

“All Tarantino did was take Captain America (and his personal solider squad, like Dum-Dum and Bucky) out, put a Jewish squad in there, and make it ultra-violent. So really, it’s a comic movie book with blood and guts, and the Jews get to celebrate themselves as heroes instead of the pushovers of WW2. Propaganda film.”

If memory serves, back in the ’70’s there was a D-grade drive in movie starring an aged erstwhile famous blonde actress playing a doctor that was allegedly experimenting on a “Youth Treatment” in South America, in order to lure the expatriate Fürhrer into her clinic… the movie ends with her putting all sorts of super-maggots on his face and laughingly giving him the heil salute as they eat him alive.

“Blacks HATE HATE HATE Jews more than any other White group, in fact, because Jews made the Civil Rights movement effective when Blacks were failures, and because Jews are on average smart and Blacks dumb.”

That’s 100% true, so I don’t understand why liberal Jews constantly look out for blacks, when blacks hate Jews more than anyone else. But then liberal Jews often act contradictory to their self-interest on almost everything. They seem to have the same mental disease most white liberals have.

When a race war starts by blacks, which I have no doubt will start within a decade, the Jews will be the first ones to be looted and killed because Blacks think Jews are filthy rich. In fact, when Obama talks about those fabled “billionaires and millionaires not paying their fair share,” he is really thinking the Jews, and all his blacks thugs hearing it are envisioning rich Jewish men dancing in their heads. The Jews are idiots. Not that smart are they? Constantly acting contradictory to their self-interest. Liberalism fucks you up; it even fucks up smart people.

That’s why you need to sell everything and disperse the funds in different banks in different states and countries, while keeping some under the mattress and close by so you can grab and run when the time comes. Anyone with a beautiful house is going to be targeted by the Nation of Islam coons. Obama has a house fetish. He always talks about white people having big houses they need lots of electrify to cool or heat, and all the water they use in their toilets and big refrigerators.

The whole country is crumbling. Even John Boehner is now giving in to Obama’s thirst for whitty’s money. They constantly raise taxes so that whitty can go broke while supporting Obama’s constituency. John Boehner is a fraud.

Well, let’s see what he has to say for Boehner. Maybe he can see something we can’t. As far as I am concerned, the Republicans are too weak and they give in to lefty demands to readily. That’s why we’re losing and will probably never be in control again. lefty policy brings in more immigrants and give them more benefit so that the Democrats have a de facto government forever. If conservatives can’t see the danger, they should get exactly what they deserve – the crumbling of the country and the culture. In a few decades the history books will start lamenting Western Civ. Some of us have already started to shed tears.

It looks like they are going to raise taxes on everyone across the board, not just the wealthy. Boehner the fraud caved in.

Anyone who has investments like rental income, stock gains, or even gains from the sale of personal property is going to have to pay more, a lot more. So it’s not just a tax on “billionaires and millionaires,” as Obama likes to fib, and the idiotic population falls for it.

If entitlement programs are not stopped, misguided liberals will think that raising taxes even more is going to alleviate the problem. It will eventually be like it is in France – 75% tax rate. And yet, it still will not be enough to remedy the situation. It doesn’t matter if the tax rate was 100% across the board, it still won’t be enough to operate the federal government or reduce the deficit by that much. The federal government needs to shrink. Most of the entitlement programs need to be cancelled if we’re going to be in green territory again.

Gerard Depardieu is selling his $65 mill mansion and moving to Belgium because of this outrageous tax rate on the rich.

“Depardieu, who turns 64 this month, said he has worked since the age of 14, first as a printer, and that in last 45 years he has paid €145 million ($190 million) in taxes.”

This is really disgraceful. Apparently $190 mill in taxes is not enough for one person to pay. If he stays in France he’ll pay tons more. Why work then? Why work to support other people?

“Depardieu said in the letter that he is leaving his country because the government ‘considers that success, creation, talent… should be sanctioned.’”

The liberals make people feel ashamed when they say they don’t want to work for someone else, calling them selfish and unpatriotic.

Now, Turkish makes more sense than Iranian. But, I still don’t think the guy is Muslim. They usually don’t have sex with a menstruating woman and Roosh has a blood fetish from what I gathered of the couple of times I ventured over there to see what the fuss was all about.

Either way, he gets a lot of girls so he must be doing something right. Not all European girls are that easy. He must know how to communicate with women to be this successful.

slightly OT but : I conducted a somewhat unscientific survey to gauge the whoredom of contemporary middle to upper middle class women. I created a fake LinkedIn account with a womans name and sent about a 100 invites to (attractive)women working in the usual femcunt professions such as law,HR,graphic design,government and such. About 40 accepted(so far) and those who did accept I enquired if they would be averse to making a whole lot more money in the worlds oldest profession in the rich sheikh intensive Middle East(far from judging eyes).And 5 responded with a request for further details.So thats about 12.5% (sure to increase) of PROPER women who are open to a crass transaction of cash for pussy.
Take what you will from this.

I know a guy who regularly bangs SWPL women by running Craigslist ads asking who needs help with their bills (and since 2008 I’m sure he’s far from alone in this tactic). Of course he has to watch out for cops and pro hookers. You’d think since no one has to pay their mortgage anymore that he wouldn’t get many takers, but of course this is America.

This is universal female behavior, not related to feminism in any way.

And it’s a good thing, at least there needs to be a significant minority of 9’s and 10’s who would do this while still low-count.

Feminism has actually curbed this behavior. Feminists are probably the hardest to buy if they’ve had the womyn’s studies courses and have plenty of student loan money to last them through their peak fertile years.

It’s heartening to know that even SWPL feminists don’t change their nature on this too much, at least below the surface.

It might stop the tend in lawmaking where men are criminalized for asking to pay. That is a serious trend that has to be stopped. This is caused by the older women getting political power to battle the younger ones and men.

So it’s barking up the wrong tree to pretend that this is a modern symptom of a declining society unless you’re talking about the trend in criminalizing men for taking advantage of this intrinsic female nature to sell while the price is high.

Unless you’re talking about the trend in bitter hags gaining more and more political power.

Another thing: the price must be kept low. Men who would pay $400k for that Brazilian virgin or sugar daddies who would pay for no real action, need to be put before a firing squad for artificially raising the value.

The historical perspective is slightly more complicated, and I would suggest that anyone who thinks that women were less resourceful in earlier times is indeed deluding himself. The tension and drama between the sexes is built into our genes. It was never absent, and it’s not about to go away any time soon. Women are endowed through their genes with a certain kind of power, and this in some ways makes them superior to men when it comes to the relationships minefield. What men can do is to understand it and try to cope with it.

Is the story true that when Sammy Davis Jr said he wanted to marry Kim Novak that the jews–so beloved by our groupie Nitelily–told him,hell no,thats meshuggah! A call was placed to the Mafia and pretty soon Sammy was short one eye. He never married Kim. Hello Jamie Foxx…you need a lesson taught!

Women base their self-esteem on the opinions of others, and on the opinions of men in particular. They’re not idiots, they know betas lie to them constantly in pursuit of snatch, so they effectively base their self-esteem solely on the opinions of alphas who don’t need them (this explains a shitload of female behavior in itself).

Anyone who’s ever dumped or rejected a girl unilaterally should know what to expect from a divorce. There’s a special kind of vindictive psychosis that comes with singlehandedly invalidating someone’s sense of self-worth and there’s a special kind of butthurt hatred a woman feels for someone who’s ceased to be useful in her pursuit of self-acceptance. I thank God I figured this out ahead of time, 10 years before I’d ever consider getting married. The idea of putting your life in the hands of this broken ego monster makes my blood run cold.

Is only me that thinks that Roosh’s blog has turned into a very negative mood? A couple years ago I still read it, he is a nice writer, but nothing special.

Make no mistake, I have a very deep repulsion for the guy, but he was a good writer

Yet now the negativity of his posts , combined with the revulsion I fell for the guy,, truly makes his blog unreadable. Someone mentioned another point I never thought before, that his forum attracts the lowest common denominator of guys. The negativity of his posts today reminds me of most WN blogs